2018 QCCQ 3264, 2018 QCCQ 3264

École Maïmonide c.

Peretz 2018 QCCQ 3264 COURT OF QUÉBEC (Small Claims Division) CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-156192-173 DATE: May 15, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DOMINIQUE GIBBENS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ École maïmonide Plaintiff v. haim peretz - and - CHOCHANA AVRAHAM Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff École Maïmonide claims $3,873.28 from Defendants for unpaid tuition fees pursuant to yearly contracts relating the attendance of their daughter, Shoula Peretz (“ Shoula ”) at its school. [ 2 ] Shoula attended the Maïmonide Jewish studies course for five years, from academic year 2009/2010 through to 2013/2014 inclusively.

Plaintiff claims that certain amounts remained unpaid in relation to the last three years of her studies. [ 3 ] Defendants deny owing anything to Plaintiff. They contest certain amounts charged by Plaintiff in addition to tuition fees and allege that Plaintiff refuses to take into account the value of renovation work that Mr. Peretz carried out at the school to reduce Shoula’s tuition fees. In fact, they claim that Plaintiff owes them an amount of $1,600, which they claim by way of a cross-application.

FACTUAL CONTEXT [ 4 ] Prior to Shoula entering secondary school, Defendants were advised that Plaintiff was offering a promotion for academic years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, pursuant to which the total tuition fees were reduced as follows: [1] ÉTUDES GÉNÉRALES ÉTUDES JUIVES* FONDS DE COMITÉS DES PARENTS FONDS DE TECHNOLOGIE** FONDS DE BÂTIMENT** TOTAL SECONDAIRE (1-5) 1 100 $ 5 250 $ 20 $ 75 $ 150 $ 6 595 $ 1 100 $ 700 $ 20 $ 75 $ 150 $ 2 045 $ [ 5 ] Defendants decided to take advantage of this promotion and enrolled Shoula at École Maïmonide. [ 6 ] For academic years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, Defendants were invoiced and paid the required tuition fees of $2,045. [2] [ 7 ] For academic year 2011/2012, Defendants were initially invoiced the regular tuition fees of $7,050. [3] They later applied for financial aid, but their request was dismissed by the Financial Aid Committee. [4] They appealed this decision to the Appeal Committee of the Bronfman Jewish Education Center, but the fees were maintained at $7,050.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff subsequently agreed to reduce the 2011/2012 tuition fees to $5,000. [ 8 ] For academic year 2012/2013, Defendants again applied for financial aid and their application was granted, so that the regular tuition fees were reduced to $6,000. [5] [ 9 ] For academic year 2013/2014, Defendants were invoiced the total tuition fees of $7,480. [6] Plaintiff accepted, however, that Mr. Peretz carry out renovation work in two bathrooms located on the ground floor of École Maïmonide and that the value of this work

be applied against Shoula’s tuition fees. On August 17, 2013, an invoice was issued to reflect the value of the renovation work carried out by Mr.

Peretz, namely $8,250. [7] [ 10 ] Plaintiff’s detailed billing shows that the tuition fees due for Shoula for academic years 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 were not fully paid by Defendants. [8] [ 11 ] A statement of account for academic year 2012/2013 shows the following amounts outstanding: Date DESCRIPTION DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE Frais de scolarité 2012-2013 $ 6 000,00 $ $ 6 000,00 CAR 2011-2012 $ 2 000,00 $ 8 000,00 11-07-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 300,00 $ 7 700,00 13-08-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 500,00 $ 7 200,00 21-08-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 406,72 $ 6 793,28 27-08-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 200,00 $ 6 593,28 19-09-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 250,00 $ 6 343,28 24-10-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 200,00 $ 6 143,28 6-11-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 190,00 $ 5 953,28 24-11-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 210,00 $ 5 743,28 12-12-2012 Encaissement argent comptant $ 200,00 $ 5 543,28 7-01-2013 Encaissement argent comptant $ 200,00 $ 5 343,28 16-01-2013 Encaissement argent comptant $ 200,00 $ 5 143,28 1-03-2013 Encaissement argent comptant $ 300,00 $ 4 843,28 18-03-2013 Encaissement argent comptant $ 200,00 $ 4 643,28 TOTAL $ 8 000,00 $ 3 356,72 Notes : TOTAL À RECEVOIR AU 30 JUIN 2013 $ 4 643,28 [ 12 ] As for academic year 2013/2014, Plaintiff’s detailed invoicing shows the following amounts outstanding: Date DESCRIPTION DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE 30-06-2013 CAR 2012-2013 $ 4 643,28 $ $ 4 643,28 11-07-2013 Frais de scolarité 2013-2014 $ 7 480,00 $ 12 123,28 13-06-2014 Paiement facture travaux effectués à l’école $ 8 250,00 $ 3 873,28 TOTAL $ 12 123,28 $ 8 250,00 Notes : TOTAL À RECEVOIR AU 30 JUIN 2014 $ 3 873,28 [ 13 ] Defendants made partial payments to Plaintiff up to and including June 2014. [ 14 ] Plaintiff formally demanded payment of the outstanding balance of $3,873.28 on September 27, 2016. [9] The claim was filed on January 7, 2016.

ANALYSIS [ 15 ] Plaintiff has established that Shoula attended the Jewish studies program at its school for the five years at issue. [ 16 ] Defendants do not contest that Plaintiff provided academic and other services for Shoula’s benefit during these years.

They only contest the amount claimed, on three grounds. - Tuition Fees In Excess of Agreed Amounts [ 17 ] Firstly, Defendants submit that the amount of tuition fees agreed for the first two years of Shoula’s attendance at École Maïmonide was not $2,045 per year, but rather $1,800 per year, including all incidental fees. [ 18 ] This is not supported by the evidence. The contracts signed by Defendants for these years clearly state that the fees are $2,045.

This is the amount that was invoiced and paid by Defendants without any protest or contestation. [ 19 ] As for the two following years, the parties agree that the tuition fees were of $5,000 for 2011/2012 (of which $3,000 has been paid) and $6,000 for 2012/2013. Plaintiff’s invoicing reflects these amounts. [ 20 ] As for Shoula’s final year of 2013/2014, Defendants offered no grounds to contest the amount invoiced of $7,480. [10]

[ 21 ] On a balance of probabilities, the Court concludes that the tuition fees claimed by Plaintiff were not in excess of the amounts agreed. - Failure to Credit Renovation Work Carried Out by Mr. Peretz [ 22 ] Secondly, Defendants submit that Plaintiff refuses to take into account and credit against the fees renovation work carried out at the school by Mr.

Peretz, representing a value of $1,600 ($650 of materials purchased and $950 for labour). [ 23 ] Plaintiff’s representative testified, however, that the value of this work is included in the credit of $8,250 applied against the fees for work carried out by Mr. Peretz in the school. [ 24 ] The Court accepts the testimony of Plaintiff’s representative on this issue. It is corroborated by the invoice for the renovation work carried out by Mr. Peretz, [11] which refers to renovations in the two bathrooms on the ground floor of the school. No evidence was offered to support Mr.

Peretz’s allegations in this regard. - Missing Receipt for Cash Payments [ 25 ] Thirdly, Defendants submit that Plaintiff has failed to take into account a $200 cash payment made by Shoula in March 2013. After a detailed review of all receipts filed into evidence by Mr. Peretz and all the receipts and invoices issued by Plaintiff, the Court concludes, however, that the March 2013 cash payment to which Mr. Peretz refers was in fact credited to Plaintiff’s account. [12] [ 26 ] Finally, Mr.

Peretz submits the payment of certain registration fees for Shoula were not taken into account by Plaintiff and applied in partial payment of the tuition fees. The contracts in place, however, provide that registration fees were in addition to the tuition fees claimed by Plaintiff in the instant case. [ 27 ] The Court therefore concludes that Defendants owe to Plaintiff the amount claimed of $3,873.28 and that no amount is due to Defendants by Plaintiff.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the action; CONDEMNS Defendants Haim Peretz and Chochana Avraham to pay to Plaintiff École Maïmonide an amount of $3,873.28, together with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided for in

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec from October 5, 2016; DISMISSES Defendants’ cross-application; THE WHOLE, WITH LEGAL COSTS in favour of Plaintiff the amount of $200 representing the judicial fees paid on the application. __________________________________ DOMINIQUE GIBBENS, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 24, 2018